|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what timetable he has set for ending double-reporting of donations by hon. Members; and for what reasons the implementation of sections 59(3) and 59(4) of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 has been delayed. 
Mr. Straw: This provision cannot be brought into force until the Electoral Commission informs me that it is content that the information it would receive from the House Authorities would be sufficiently complete. That is, the information received must be the same as that which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 currently requires Members who have received donations to provide to the Electoral Commission.
I understand that discussions between the Electoral Commission and the House Authorities are continuing with a view to enabling the Electoral Commission to confirm that this provision can be commenced.
Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which public authorities, other than local authorities, police forces and the Electoral Commission, have access to the full versions of electoral role databases. 
Mr. Wills: The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 (S.I.2001/341), and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (S.I.2001/497), as amended, set out the regulatory regime governing access to the full electoral register in Great Britain. Under part 6 of each set of regulations, relevant parts of the full register may be supplied by an electoral registration officer, to certain persons and bodies, for use for specific purposes, including crime prevention and enforcement of criminal law. Part 6 also allows the register to be supplied to persons whose entitlement arises from another enactment.
In addition to local authorities, police forces, the Electoral Commission and Government Departments, the other public bodies specified as being entitled to be supplied with copies of relevant parts of, or the whole of, the full register under the regulations cited above are:
The Boundary Commission
The British Library
The National Library for Scotland
Other Public Libraries
Financial Service Authority
National Library Services
The Office of National Statistics
Any office designated by the Lord Chancellor under section 3(1) of the Juries Act 1974
The Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (may be supplied with the full register for the full range of their statutory functions)
National Criminal Intelligence Service
National Crime Squad
Police Information Technology Organisation
Candidates, Local Constituency Parties and Registered Political Parties
Credit Reference Agencies
Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, Members of the National Assembly of Wales, Scottish Parliament, local councillors, London Assembly Members, Mayor of London and other elected Mayors as set out in section 39(1) of Local Government Act 1999.
|Number of formal complaints|
The Grievance Policy contains a specific sub-section on dealing with complaints about bullying that breach equality and diversity requirements. All such complaints are referred to Human Resources for advice, and will almost always result in the appointment of an independent officer to investigate. Grievances will be dealt with promptly and in confidence.
The Conduct Policy sets out the standard of behaviour that is expected of all staff. Discriminatory or unacceptable behaviour such as bullying, harassment, victimisation or unwanted verbal and non-verbal contact is not tolerated. Staff are expected to behave in an acceptable manner and be responsible for their actions. Their responsibilities are to:
respect the dignity of others
ensure their own behaviour does not constitute harassment, bullying or victimisation of others where unacceptable behaviour takes place, take action to stop it and/or inform their managers.
Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.
Bullying or harassment may be by an individual against an individual (perhaps by someone in a position of authority such as a manager or supervisor) or involve groups of people. It may be obvious or may be insidious. Whatever form it takes, it is unwarranted and unwelcome to the individual.
The Equality and Diversity Policy is based on the principle of establishing practices to eradicate unacceptable behaviour such as harassment and bullying, and stresses the stance taken by the Ministry of zero tolerance.
In recent years all staff were trained in raising awareness of equality and diversity issues, and Workplace Mediation was introduced across the Department. This offered an informal way of resolving disputes between people who work together, with the assistance of trained mediators.
The public sector Prison Service does not tolerate bullying in the workplace. Formal complaints of staff bullying are investigated in accordance with Prison Service Order (PSO) 1300 Investigations, which contains detailed guidance on the conduct of all types of investigations; and PSO 8460 Conduct and Discipline, which sets out the procedures for dealing with staff misconduct.
PSO 8460 identifies bullying as behaviour which constitutes gross misconduct (i.e. misconduct which is so serious as to make any further relationship and trust between the Service and the member of staff concerned impossible) and, depending on the circumstances of the case, may result in dismissal from the Service.
Central co-ordination of formal investigations within the public sector Prison Service is managed through the Professional Standards Unit's Investigation Support Section (ISS). Whenever a formal investigation is established, ISS must be informed, as soon as possible, so that the investigation can be registered on the ISS database. This database contains details of the types and locations of formal investigations, their status and outcomes. Records of informal investigations are not held centrally, this information is maintained at a local level by governing governors and heads of group.
Bullying is not separately identified as a type of investigation on the ISS database. Instead, complaints of bullying could be investigated as allegations of inappropriate behaviour between staff or harassment.
ISS records show that at least 56 formal disciplinary investigations into allegations of inappropriate behaviour and harassment were commissioned during the 12 month period to 31 January 2008. A breakdown of these is shown in the following table. However, ISS cannot confirm with any certainty whether or not the original complaint was related to staff bullying. In order to confirm how many cases of bullying were reported, we would need to contact each of our headquarters groups and our 127 public sector Prison Service establishments and ask them to check their local records. This would incur disproportionate cost.
|Formal investigations into alleged inappropriate behaviour and/or harassment( 1)|
|Number of investigations|
|(1) Data has been sourced from the ISS database and was correct as at 5 February 2008. It does not include simple inquiries or informal investigations.|
Mr. Straw: The judicial database shows that 159 salaried and fee-paid judges were appointed to the courts in the calendar year 2007. Of these 48 (30.2 per cent.) were women. 107 of the appointees answered the question about their ethnicity and of these nine (8.4 per cent.) described their ethnicity as other than white.
In the same period, 266 people were appointed to salaried or fee-paid office in tribunals, of whom 94 (35.3 per cent.) were women. 174 of the appointees answered the question about their ethnicity and of these 24 (13.8 per cent.) described their ethnicity as other than white.
Maria Eagle: The number of cases either committed or sent for trial, committed for sentence or appealing against a magistrates court's decision which were disposed of at Knutsford Crown court during the last five years are listed in the following table.
Derek Wyatt: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make an assessment of the implications of the recent House of Lords ruling in A v. Hoare for the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980. 
Bridget Prentice: The Government are carefully considering the recent ruling by the House of Lords in the cases of A v. Hoare, C(FC) v. Middlesbrough council, X(FC) and another (FC) v. London borough of Wandsworth, H(FC) v. Suffolk county council and Young (FC) v. Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds). This is in the context of our proposed consultation on the text of a draft Bill to implement the Law Commissions recommendations for the reform of the Limitation Act 1980 as a whole.
Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many cases are due to be heard by Macclesfield magistrates court; and how long on average the waiting period was before a case was heard by the court in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Maria Eagle: As at 7 February 2008, there are 58 adult trials and two youth trials outstanding at Macclesfield magistrates court. As a result of the implementation of the Criminal Justice Simple Speedy Summary (CJSSS) programme in Macclesfield, there is not a backlog of cases. This information has been supplied directly from the court.
The following table sets out estimates for the average time taken between the recorded date on which a defendant commits an offence to the date on which the defendants case is first considered by a magistrates court for 2007. Information is not available for Macclesfield magistrates court separately. However, estimates have been provided for the Vale Royal Clerkship which includes combined information for Macclesfield magistrates court and Northwich magistrates court.
|Average time taken between date of offence to first listing for all defendants in completed criminal cases in magistrates courts, information for Vale Royal Clerkship and England and Wales, 2007|
|Estimated average number of days from offence to first listing in magistrates court||Margin of error (+/- days)||Sample size (number of defendants)|
1. Results are based on proceedings in one sample week in March and September. The Time Intervals Survey (TIS) is a sample survey that produces estimates of the average time taken between stages of proceedings for defendants in completed criminal cases in magistrates courts. More information on TIS is available on the Ministry of Justice website.
2. The margin of error is a measure of the precision of a result based on a sample survey. The true value is likely to fall within the range of the sample result +/- the margin of error.
3. First listing refers to the first listed hearing of the case in the magistrates court.
4. Information is provided for the Vale Royal Clerkship which covers Macclesfield and Northwich magistrates courts. It is not possible to give estimates for 2007 for Macclesfield magistrates court separately.
Time Intervals Survey (TIS), Ministry of Justice.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|